Consumer TechConsumer technology is going to exist indefinitely, perhaps for as long as the human species exists. At CleanTechnica, we try to feature consumer technologies that help to reduce global warming pollution and other types of pollution. For example: electric cars, solar panels, bikes, energy efficient appliances and electronics, and green smartphone apps. Keep an eye on this category for all sorts of fun and cool, helpful consumer technology.

Climate Skeptics' Leading Scientist Funded by Dirty Energy

If you are gardening, you have to pay attention to the plants you want to grow, but you also have to pay some attention to the weeds. We seem to be at the beginning of a true clean energy revolution, but even as we admire the nutritious, delicious-looking clean energy crops sprouting up, we have to spend a little time keeping an eye on the weeds.

Climate change and the breakthrough of clean energy technologies are linked, since climate change is a major factor spurring clean energy development and growth.

And one of the leading ways dirty energy titans of the past (and present) who do not want to lose their business or their income try to keep clean energy from growing is through continual attempts to undermine the scientific findings of some of the world’s greatest scientists.

Well, it is no surprise to find out that one of the climate skeptics’ leading scientists — probably the “independent” scientist most often used by the media to present the climate change deniers’ arguments — makes quite a bit of money working for dirty energy companies. But it took a little investigative research (not by me, I have to admit) to uncover this carefully guarded information.

[social_buttons]

One of the most ridiculous claims that you see climate deniers making repeatedly is that climate change is a big hoax that is basically just an underhanded scheme for climate scientists and Al Gore to make money. It is such a ridiculous claim, it makes me wonder if there is a single iota of discernment floating around in the minds of these climate deniers at all.

The truth is, some people’s fundamental goal in life is to make money. And some people’s fundamental goal in life is to help the world. Of course, everyone has some mixture of goals, not just one. And, perhaps, people on both sides of this issue think (or convince themselves) that these two goals can line up for them — they can help the world and make some money doing so at the same time. But the fact is, we have two competing ideas about which technologies are good for people and the planet and which are taking us down a road we don’t want to see the end of.

Thus, advocates of dirty energy (i.e. coal and oil) have a much harder time finding legitimate scientists who are on their side.

One of their key “independent” witnesses, Patrick Michaels, is one of the only climate scientists in the world who actually aligns himself with the climate skeptic crew. He does accept that climate change is happening, but he is known for downplaying the severity of the problem and the role of humans in this matter.

1) When the auto industry started launching lawsuits at states that adopted higher emissions standards, they planned to call Michaels to the stand to testify that emissions were not contributing to climate change in a key case in Vermont. Of course, this is his calling, so he was up for it. However, the judge requested that he make public the sources of funding for his work if he were going to testify. For some reason, this was such a big problem for him — one that he and tried to argue his way out of — that he ended up refusing to do so and could not testify as a result.

The auto industry had to dismiss him as a witness and bring in another climate skeptic scientist. Apparently, a good climate skeptic is hard to come by, because this one was actually unable to deny in court that burning fossil fuels leads to climate change. When it came to it, he admitted on the stand: “The increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is real. It is due primarily to the burning of fossil fuels.”

2) Despite Michaels’ unwillingness to reveal all of his funding sources, the court’s documents from that case did still reveal that Michaels had received funding from at least one major energy company. Then, Greenpeace picked up the ball and (using the Freedom of Information Act) was able to dig a little further into the issue. It found out the following. Michaels had earned hundreds of thousands of dollars from coal and oil companies. For one job alone, “he made $100,000 ‘from the Intermountain Rural Electric Association to fund climate denial campaigning around the time of the release of An Inconvenient Truth.'” Not bad, if you’re trying to save the world from clean energy that is.

It is hard to believe that scientists who work for legitimate, independent organizations and institutions (not solar and wind power companies) routinely get accused of tailoring their research findings to certain pre-conceived conclusions when climate skeptics’ best scientist is heavily funded by oil and coal companies.

Would genuine climate scientists really lose out if the science of climate change were more up in the air? No, there would be more research for them to do! On the other hand, climate scientists (i.e. Patrick Michaels) who get a ton of funding from coal and oil companies might be in a slightly different position if 97% of the public agreed with the 97% of climate scientists who say that there is no question climate changeis happening and it is largely human-induced. His “expertise” may become useless as its roots hang in the open wind, no longer soaking up the water needed for important clean energy crops to grow.

About the Author

Zachary Shahan spends most of his time here on CleanTechnica as the director/chief editor. Otherwise, he's probably enthusiastically fulfilling his duties as the director/editor of Solar Love, EV Obsession, Planetsave, or Bikocity. Zach is recognized globally as a solar energy, electric car, and wind energy expert. If you would like him to speak at a related conference or event, connect with him via social media.
You can connect with Zach on any popular social networking site you like. Links to all of his main social media profiles are on ZacharyShahan.com.

I agree with victor that there will be consequences and that is true even if we can’t really agree on what the consequences will be right away.

Dharmarajan

I agree with victor that there will be consequences and that is true even if we can’t really agree on what the consequences will be right away.

Dharmarajan

I agree with victor that there will be consequences and that is true even if we can’t really agree on what the consequences will be right away.

Victor

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Dumping billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere is not a benign action. There will be consequences, even if we cannot agree what those consequences will be.

Victor

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Dumping billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere is not a benign action. There will be consequences, even if we cannot agree what those consequences will be.

Victor

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Dumping billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere is not a benign action. There will be consequences, even if we cannot agree what those consequences will be.

http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com Rod Adams

@Duuuuh – I have a difficult time debating with people who make strong assertions and cast aspersions on others without even revealing their own name or motivation for engaging in discussion.

Exactly who has their hand in your pocket – the people who want to impose a fee on waste dumping into the environment that is based on the quantity dumped in order to discourage the practice? Are you such a large contributor to the 20 or so billion tons per year of CO2 that it will make much of a difference in your standard of living to actually pay your fair share of the cost of using the atmosphere as a waste dump?

With regard to the original article – I remember clearly a time when I was in an audience of nuclear engineers and scientists at an American Nuclear Society meeting in the mid 1990s. Dr. Michaels had been invited to give a talk. During that talk, he issued a stern warning to the assembled crowd that we should not spend any time or effort emphasizing the fact that our favored power source is emission free. He told us that nuclear technologists took a path of emphasizing environmental benefits in the earliest days of the technology’s development and “look where that got you.” (The mid 1990s were a very dark period in the nuclear energy world; many attendees thought that there would never be another nuclear plant built in the US and most thought that existing plants would all be decommissioned at the end of their initial 40 year license period.)

Michaels instead advocated an alignment between nuclear energy and more conservative business thinking – if we emphasized national security advantages we just might build a few new plants as an insurance policy. That message sat well with those attendees who worked for large utilities and vendor companies that made at least as much – and probably a lot more – money by burning dirty fuels and by making equipment for dirty fuel plants as they did in the nuclear business.

I refused to take that advice then and I still refuse today. Nuclear fission is superior on many grounds, ESPECIALLY on environmental measures of effectiveness.

It is, after all, clean enough to operate inside sealed submarines.

Rod Adams

Publisher, Atomic Insights

Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast

PS – There really is room to criticize Al Gore for his very obvious efforts to make money from measures like cap and trade policies and CO2 offset programs that do not even do much to reduce actual emissions. He would be a much more effective spokesperson if he did not live in an enormous house and travel so much on private aircraft and in large SUVs.

http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com Rod Adams

@Duuuuh – I have a difficult time debating with people who make strong assertions and cast aspersions on others without even revealing their own name or motivation for engaging in discussion.

Exactly who has their hand in your pocket – the people who want to impose a fee on waste dumping into the environment that is based on the quantity dumped in order to discourage the practice? Are you such a large contributor to the 20 or so billion tons per year of CO2 that it will make much of a difference in your standard of living to actually pay your fair share of the cost of using the atmosphere as a waste dump?

With regard to the original article – I remember clearly a time when I was in an audience of nuclear engineers and scientists at an American Nuclear Society meeting in the mid 1990s. Dr. Michaels had been invited to give a talk. During that talk, he issued a stern warning to the assembled crowd that we should not spend any time or effort emphasizing the fact that our favored power source is emission free. He told us that nuclear technologists took a path of emphasizing environmental benefits in the earliest days of the technology’s development and “look where that got you.” (The mid 1990s were a very dark period in the nuclear energy world; many attendees thought that there would never be another nuclear plant built in the US and most thought that existing plants would all be decommissioned at the end of their initial 40 year license period.)

Michaels instead advocated an alignment between nuclear energy and more conservative business thinking – if we emphasized national security advantages we just might build a few new plants as an insurance policy. That message sat well with those attendees who worked for large utilities and vendor companies that made at least as much – and probably a lot more – money by burning dirty fuels and by making equipment for dirty fuel plants as they did in the nuclear business.

I refused to take that advice then and I still refuse today. Nuclear fission is superior on many grounds, ESPECIALLY on environmental measures of effectiveness.

It is, after all, clean enough to operate inside sealed submarines.

Rod Adams

Publisher, Atomic Insights

Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast

PS – There really is room to criticize Al Gore for his very obvious efforts to make money from measures like cap and trade policies and CO2 offset programs that do not even do much to reduce actual emissions. He would be a much more effective spokesperson if he did not live in an enormous house and travel so much on private aircraft and in large SUVs.

http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com Rod Adams

@Duuuuh – I have a difficult time debating with people who make strong assertions and cast aspersions on others without even revealing their own name or motivation for engaging in discussion.

Exactly who has their hand in your pocket – the people who want to impose a fee on waste dumping into the environment that is based on the quantity dumped in order to discourage the practice? Are you such a large contributor to the 20 or so billion tons per year of CO2 that it will make much of a difference in your standard of living to actually pay your fair share of the cost of using the atmosphere as a waste dump?

With regard to the original article – I remember clearly a time when I was in an audience of nuclear engineers and scientists at an American Nuclear Society meeting in the mid 1990s. Dr. Michaels had been invited to give a talk. During that talk, he issued a stern warning to the assembled crowd that we should not spend any time or effort emphasizing the fact that our favored power source is emission free. He told us that nuclear technologists took a path of emphasizing environmental benefits in the earliest days of the technology’s development and “look where that got you.” (The mid 1990s were a very dark period in the nuclear energy world; many attendees thought that there would never be another nuclear plant built in the US and most thought that existing plants would all be decommissioned at the end of their initial 40 year license period.)

Michaels instead advocated an alignment between nuclear energy and more conservative business thinking – if we emphasized national security advantages we just might build a few new plants as an insurance policy. That message sat well with those attendees who worked for large utilities and vendor companies that made at least as much – and probably a lot more – money by burning dirty fuels and by making equipment for dirty fuel plants as they did in the nuclear business.

I refused to take that advice then and I still refuse today. Nuclear fission is superior on many grounds, ESPECIALLY on environmental measures of effectiveness.

It is, after all, clean enough to operate inside sealed submarines.

Rod Adams

Publisher, Atomic Insights

Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast

PS – There really is room to criticize Al Gore for his very obvious efforts to make money from measures like cap and trade policies and CO2 offset programs that do not even do much to reduce actual emissions. He would be a much more effective spokesperson if he did not live in an enormous house and travel so much on private aircraft and in large SUVs.

Duuuuh

I will leave you with this… Sort of a religious analogy I know. But it is sort of appropriate…

Sin City by Graham Parsons

This old town is filled with sin,

It’ll swallow you in

If you’ve got some money to burn.

Take it home right away,

You’ve got three years to pay

But Satan is waiting his turn

This old earthquake’s gonna leave me in the poor house.

It seems like this whole town’s insane

On the thirty-first floor your gold plated door

Won’t keep out the Lord’s burning rain

The scientists say

It’ll all wash away

But we don’t believe any more

Cause we’ve got our recruits

And our green mohair suits

So please show you ID At the door.

A friend came around.

Tried to clean up this town,

His ideas made some people mad.

But he trusted his crowd,

So he spoke right out loud

And they lost the best friend they had

On the thirty-first floor your gold plated door

Won’t keep out the Lord’s burning rain

Duuuuh

I will leave you with this… Sort of a religious analogy I know. But it is sort of appropriate…

Sin City by Graham Parsons

This old town is filled with sin,

It’ll swallow you in

If you’ve got some money to burn.

Take it home right away,

You’ve got three years to pay

But Satan is waiting his turn

This old earthquake’s gonna leave me in the poor house.

It seems like this whole town’s insane

On the thirty-first floor your gold plated door

Won’t keep out the Lord’s burning rain

The scientists say

It’ll all wash away

But we don’t believe any more

Cause we’ve got our recruits

And our green mohair suits

So please show you ID At the door.

A friend came around.

Tried to clean up this town,

His ideas made some people mad.

But he trusted his crowd,

So he spoke right out loud

And they lost the best friend they had

On the thirty-first floor your gold plated door

Won’t keep out the Lord’s burning rain

Duuuuh

Thanks Zachery… slap down the skeptic again. And once more… the religious analogy was not the real point. I’m not looking for a rosy picture of what “could be if” no more than I’m looking for a dark painting from an Edgar Allen Poe story for our future or future generation.

I am not threatened by clean energy… that is a good thing. On that we can both agree. We do have to get to that somehow and end our dependence on foreign oil. But when it is likely that you are going to bankrupt us and future generations and use contrived reasoning based on faulty and corrupt data then I do have a problem with that. No one that I know wants to “dirty the planet”.

It is stupidity to ask the plumber to increase the pressure in the shower without fixing the leaks first. So let’s start with getting off of foreign oil… then we will have plenty left to work on clean sources.

It’s not the “true science” that is the problem… it is the parts that are a farce that are… they destroy any credibility that true scientist have and you can’t deny that this house of cards, as it stands now, was built on that data. Every day it teeters on the brink of collapse.

Start with a clean slate and try again… and this time find peers without an agenda to study climate change. It shouldn’t be too hard to find all those people who’s “fundamental goal in life is to help the world” without the profit motivation. Otherwise… it will have no credibility with those of us who have to pay for it.

I am one of those skeptics that you are going to have to convince. If you can’t convince me that “it is man made and man can fix it” then you have a very steep uphill battle getting me and people like me to invest in it. There are too many snake oil salesmen out there.

Point is… catastrophes happen… it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try to stop or lessen them. It just means that we need to be frugal with our resources (both natural and financial) and not create man made catastrophes trying to stop natural ones in the process. Otherwise… the funds won’t be there to rescue us from the natural ones when they inevitably occur.

Duuuuh

Thanks Zachery… slap down the skeptic again. And once more… the religious analogy was not the real point. I’m not looking for a rosy picture of what “could be if” no more than I’m looking for a dark painting from an Edgar Allen Poe story for our future or future generation.

I am not threatened by clean energy… that is a good thing. On that we can both agree. We do have to get to that somehow and end our dependence on foreign oil. But when it is likely that you are going to bankrupt us and future generations and use contrived reasoning based on faulty and corrupt data then I do have a problem with that. No one that I know wants to “dirty the planet”.

It is stupidity to ask the plumber to increase the pressure in the shower without fixing the leaks first. So let’s start with getting off of foreign oil… then we will have plenty left to work on clean sources.

It’s not the “true science” that is the problem… it is the parts that are a farce that are… they destroy any credibility that true scientist have and you can’t deny that this house of cards, as it stands now, was built on that data. Every day it teeters on the brink of collapse.

Start with a clean slate and try again… and this time find peers without an agenda to study climate change. It shouldn’t be too hard to find all those people who’s “fundamental goal in life is to help the world” without the profit motivation. Otherwise… it will have no credibility with those of us who have to pay for it.

I am one of those skeptics that you are going to have to convince. If you can’t convince me that “it is man made and man can fix it” then you have a very steep uphill battle getting me and people like me to invest in it. There are too many snake oil salesmen out there.

Point is… catastrophes happen… it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try to stop or lessen them. It just means that we need to be frugal with our resources (both natural and financial) and not create man made catastrophes trying to stop natural ones in the process. Otherwise… the funds won’t be there to rescue us from the natural ones when they inevitably occur.

Duuuuh

Thanks Zachery… slap down the skeptic again. And once more… the religious analogy was not the real point. I’m not looking for a rosy picture of what “could be if” no more than I’m looking for a dark painting from an Edgar Allen Poe story for our future or future generation.

I am not threatened by clean energy… that is a good thing. On that we can both agree. We do have to get to that somehow and end our dependence on foreign oil. But when it is likely that you are going to bankrupt us and future generations and use contrived reasoning based on faulty and corrupt data then I do have a problem with that. No one that I know wants to “dirty the planet”.

It is stupidity to ask the plumber to increase the pressure in the shower without fixing the leaks first. So let’s start with getting off of foreign oil… then we will have plenty left to work on clean sources.

It’s not the “true science” that is the problem… it is the parts that are a farce that are… they destroy any credibility that true scientist have and you can’t deny that this house of cards, as it stands now, was built on that data. Every day it teeters on the brink of collapse.

Start with a clean slate and try again… and this time find peers without an agenda to study climate change. It shouldn’t be too hard to find all those people who’s “fundamental goal in life is to help the world” without the profit motivation. Otherwise… it will have no credibility with those of us who have to pay for it.

I am one of those skeptics that you are going to have to convince. If you can’t convince me that “it is man made and man can fix it” then you have a very steep uphill battle getting me and people like me to invest in it. There are too many snake oil salesmen out there.

Point is… catastrophes happen… it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try to stop or lessen them. It just means that we need to be frugal with our resources (both natural and financial) and not create man made catastrophes trying to stop natural ones in the process. Otherwise… the funds won’t be there to rescue us from the natural ones when they inevitably occur.

Zach

Duuuuuh, you are so far off the mark with the religious analogy, I don’t even know what world to go to to communicate with you about the issue.

Climate change is a practical, physical issue concerning the plant and life on this planet. It has nothing to do with spirituality or religion.

I am not a skeptic that God exists, to set the record straight on that matter.

The study from 2009 is the most up-to-date on the differences in views between scientists and the public, but they are probably even wider after all of these pseudo scandals because the scientists have repeatedly affirmed that the science of climate change is just as sound as ever whereas much of the public have been convinced that it has been discredited. The public has been duped, but the scientists much less so.

Your climate science points have been clearly refuted so many times it is just a wonder that you can still hang onto them.

I’m sorry you are so threatened by clean energy and action to prevent extreme climate catastrophes that your children and grandchildren will have to deal with.

Zach

Duuuuuh, you are so far off the mark with the religious analogy, I don’t even know what world to go to to communicate with you about the issue.

Climate change is a practical, physical issue concerning the plant and life on this planet. It has nothing to do with spirituality or religion.

I am not a skeptic that God exists, to set the record straight on that matter.

The study from 2009 is the most up-to-date on the differences in views between scientists and the public, but they are probably even wider after all of these pseudo scandals because the scientists have repeatedly affirmed that the science of climate change is just as sound as ever whereas much of the public have been convinced that it has been discredited. The public has been duped, but the scientists much less so.

Your climate science points have been clearly refuted so many times it is just a wonder that you can still hang onto them.

I’m sorry you are so threatened by clean energy and action to prevent extreme climate catastrophes that your children and grandchildren will have to deal with.

Zach

Duuuuuh, you are so far off the mark with the religious analogy, I don’t even know what world to go to to communicate with you about the issue.

Climate change is a practical, physical issue concerning the plant and life on this planet. It has nothing to do with spirituality or religion.

I am not a skeptic that God exists, to set the record straight on that matter.

The study from 2009 is the most up-to-date on the differences in views between scientists and the public, but they are probably even wider after all of these pseudo scandals because the scientists have repeatedly affirmed that the science of climate change is just as sound as ever whereas much of the public have been convinced that it has been discredited. The public has been duped, but the scientists much less so.

Your climate science points have been clearly refuted so many times it is just a wonder that you can still hang onto them.

I’m sorry you are so threatened by clean energy and action to prevent extreme climate catastrophes that your children and grandchildren will have to deal with.

Duuuuh

BTW Zachery… Read the first paragraph of this article and tell me if he wasn’t describing the Garden of Eden or the Promised Land…. flowing with milk and honey (as long as we keep those nasty “denier” weeds out of our garden).

Duuuuh

BTW Zachery… Read the first paragraph of this article and tell me if he wasn’t describing the Garden of Eden or the Promised Land…. flowing with milk and honey (as long as we keep those nasty “denier” weeds out of our garden).

Duuuuh

BTW Zachery… Read the first paragraph of this article and tell me if he wasn’t describing the Garden of Eden or the Promised Land…. flowing with milk and honey (as long as we keep those nasty “denier” weeds out of our garden).

Duuuuh

Yes Zachary… it is clear that SOME do and it sould be obvious to you. But that was not my point… funny you should single that out though. Did I hit a nerve or something?

And thanks for the rehash of a poll from July 9, 2009 taken prior to the unveiling of the “hide the decline” fiasco and subsequent revelations of “errors” from the IPCC and others around the world. (I’m just wondering how many more “revelations” are to follow and how they will be spun.)

BTW… You might not want to stand too close to that table with one leg missing. I know it is still standing but I wouldn’t put any weight on it… it might fall down if you do.

This is exactly what is wrong here… the use of old data to make a point and exclude ignore or suppress the new data and facts to keep the original assertion propped up.

I’m not a denier of climate change… I’m a skeptic that it is man made and that man can change it just like you may be a skeptic that God exist. That is why I question when I hear someone use words like “consensus” “undeniable” “the debate is over” and “deniers”. It does sound to me more like a religion.

My real point was… to borrow a few of Global Patriots words…. The sad truth is that profits (and funding) are gained by cutting corners – hiding the decline, and fudging the figures – rather than doing the right thing – telling the truth.

I have no problem with keeping the environment clean. But I do have a problem when someone tells me that it’s man made CO2 that I produce that does it. When I know good an well that there are a lot of other natural factors that are much more suspect. The same factors that have been in play “since time began”.

The “But what if it IS true?” argument doesn’t quite get it with me. That’s the “faith” reveal of a religious fanatic.

Duuuuh

Yes Zachary… it is clear that SOME do and it sould be obvious to you. But that was not my point… funny you should single that out though. Did I hit a nerve or something?

And thanks for the rehash of a poll from July 9, 2009 taken prior to the unveiling of the “hide the decline” fiasco and subsequent revelations of “errors” from the IPCC and others around the world. (I’m just wondering how many more “revelations” are to follow and how they will be spun.)

BTW… You might not want to stand too close to that table with one leg missing. I know it is still standing but I wouldn’t put any weight on it… it might fall down if you do.

This is exactly what is wrong here… the use of old data to make a point and exclude ignore or suppress the new data and facts to keep the original assertion propped up.

I’m not a denier of climate change… I’m a skeptic that it is man made and that man can change it just like you may be a skeptic that God exist. That is why I question when I hear someone use words like “consensus” “undeniable” “the debate is over” and “deniers”. It does sound to me more like a religion.

My real point was… to borrow a few of Global Patriots words…. The sad truth is that profits (and funding) are gained by cutting corners – hiding the decline, and fudging the figures – rather than doing the right thing – telling the truth.

I have no problem with keeping the environment clean. But I do have a problem when someone tells me that it’s man made CO2 that I produce that does it. When I know good an well that there are a lot of other natural factors that are much more suspect. The same factors that have been in play “since time began”.

The “But what if it IS true?” argument doesn’t quite get it with me. That’s the “faith” reveal of a religious fanatic.

http://lightngreen.com Zachary Shahan

Duuuh, if i understand correctly, people who believe in climate change believe in it because they approach it like a religion?

Wind Energy

Search the IM Network

The content produced by this site is for entertainment purposes only. Opinions and comments published on this site may not be sanctioned by, and do not necessarily represent the views of Sustainable Enterprises Media, Inc., its owners, sponsors, affiliates, or subsidiaries.